The Armenian incident can help us to understand a wider scenario. Pope Francis has always been close to the Armenian community, and he acknowledges that the massacre of Armenians that took place in Turkey between 1915 and 1917 has all the characteristics of a genocide. This is the reason he wanted a celebration in St. Peter’s Basilica to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the genocide, and at the same time to make a contribution to reconciliation. The Armenian genocide is not acknowledged in Turkey. Officially Turkey holds that Armenians died because of an armed conflict which also caused many Muslims deaths. However, at the moment, this official position is not intransigent. The Turkish premier, Ahmet Davutoglu, has been promoting a reconciliation process for long a time. As a result of this process, Turkey may agree to acknowledge the genocide in historical, but not legal, terms, because the latter lead to the conclusion that the entire Turkish people are accountable for the crime, while the historical approach sheds light on the facts, but does not imply a common responsibility. This is not an easy path to tread.

In his 2001 trip to Armenia, St. John Paul II never pronounced the word genocide, but he used it in a joint written text along with the Catholicos Karekin II, the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church. In this way the late Pope acknowledged the historical fact of the genocide, but avoided taking a strong stance as a Church’s leader, since every word could have been misinterpreted.

When Pope Francis’ Apr. 12 discourse was being prepared, its drafters wanted to respect Pope Francis’ wish to highlight the genocide issue. The speech – via cypher – was dispatched to an inner circle of papal nuncios during the previous days. The question whether or not to use the word genocide was widely discussed within the Secretariat of State. In the end, it was decided that the best thing was simply to quote from the joint statement of St. John Paul II and Karekin II.

It would have been better if Pope Francis, while reading his prepared text, had explained that he was quoting from the 2001 joint declaration. In fact, the real error of the speech comes shortly thereafter when the Pope draws a direct parallel with other, similar historical events in the twentieth century, while he referred to the 1994 massacres in Rwanda as “mass killings.” It is noteworthy that Rwanda’s massacres were the first to be acknowledged as a genocide by the International Court at The Hague.

For this reason, it was easy for the Turkish government to protest. After the talks that took place during Pope Francis’ visit to Turkey last November 28-30, the Turkish government was convinced of the Pope’s backing for the reconciliation process as the Turks understood it. So, last week’s papal discourse was interpreted as a betrayal, one that cast the Armenian genocide in legal, not only historical, terms. Hence, a strongly-worded Turkish Foreign Ministry press release was published, one that zeroed in on the legal notion of genocide, and thus shed light on the mistakes made by the Holy See in drafting the Pope’s text.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry text not only protested against the Pope, but also against the Armenian representatives at the liturgy in St. Peter’s. Patriarch Aram I from Cilicia added about 10 minutes of off-the-cuff remarks to his written intervention, and described with conviction and eloquence his account of the genocide that had been systematically carried out against the Armenians by the Turks. There is no need to point out that the Turkish government was not pleased with this.

This story is revealing and provides much food for analysis. This is not the first time that a non-Catholic guest of the Vatican was able recently to speak out strongly. The same thing happened during the 2014 Synod of Bishops when Metropolitan Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church attacked the Ukrainian Catholic Church. The Secretariat of State remained silent…

As it remained silent following the Armenian incident. The Secretariat of State pondered all the possibilities: to issue a clarification would be tantamount to admitting fault; to issue no clarification and wait for nerves to settle down — this too is a strategy. But the best strategy is to have foreseen the Turkish reaction and to have prepared a better overall analysis in advance. The lack of both of these steps is the consequence of texts not being properly checked and the lines of communication not being kept open between nuncios, analysts and the drafters of the Pope’s remarks. If a mistake can be said to have occurred, it was that gaps in communications like these were not properly remedied.

The will to condemn the Armenian genocide, thus making a step forward on the reconciliation, was fully present in the Vatican. But there was also the awareness that diplomatic tension with Turkey could follow suit. Every step was made to foster the reconciliation and avoid any break with Turkey. Something failed, however, within the Vatican Secretariat of State, so that it did not properly handle the reports coming in from Turkey and Armenia.

These dysfunctions are the real problem that must be solved. Rather than a comprehensive revision of “Pastor Bonus”, the Apostolic Constitution governing the Roman Curia, the Council of Cardinals should think about the rationalization of resources. There are many crossed competences between dicasteries, but this problem cannot be solved by rolling smaller dicasteries into bigger congregations. A better use of resources must be envisioned.

However, resource allotment is not a hot topic during discussions of the Council of Cardinals, and there is no reform of the Secretariat of State on the agenda. During their last meeting of April 11-13, the Council of Cardinals made the decision that a further commission for communication was needed in order to put into practice the suggestions made by the Committee for Communication established in July. The Council also discussed their working methodology, which is now more urgent after nine meetings over one and a half years. The Cardinals also concluded that a committee should draft a new Apostolic Constitution to replace “Pastor Bonus”.

These discussions mostly focus on structure, but no mention is ever made of functionality. It is not well understood how these new dicasteries will work (the establishment of the super congregations of Charity, Justice and Peace and Laity, Family and Life is now imminent). Another recurrent question is whether a better organization of competences within and between the dicasteries could replace this continuous push for a general reform.

This last consideration brings up the problem of vision. Rightly, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, insisted that the task of his dicastery is that of giving a theological structure to the pontificate. This is what the Roman Curia is needed for, to assist the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, with any of his responsibilities.

The Secretariat of State, on the other hand, is called to give a diplomatic shape to this pontificate. St. John Paul II relied upon Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger for theological structuring; on Cardinal Agostino Casaroli to handle its diplomacy;  on Cardinal Roger Etchegaray to build diplomatic outposts; on Cardinal Paul Poupard to bridge cultural relations. These individuals also formed the next generation, whose most prominent representative is now Cardinal Jean Louis Tauran – who also provides continuity between the last two pontificates.

Real reform of Secretariat of State may in the end treat the way it exercises its mission in the world. Under St. John Paul II, the Secretariat of State established cultural bridges to dialogue with atheistic regimes, thus contributing to the downfall of European Communism. Benedict XVI challenged the post-modern world, and based his diplomacy on truth – an approach echoed in current diplomacy. Now it is time to bring this diplomacy of truth into the Church’s missionary activities. One of the ideas circulating is that of using Church structures – refugee camps and, above all, schools and health facilities – as diplomatic outposts. The Church’s missions may become the ground for the diplomacy of truth, committed to defending the integrity of the human being.

Data may help to clarify how this commitment could be significant. Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi, Holy See Permanent Observer to United Nations in Geneva, quantified the Catholic commitment to the High Commissioner for Human Rights on May 27, 2013.

Here are the data. In the field of education, there are 70,544 Catholic kindergartens looking after 6,478,627 pupils; 92,847 primary schools with 31,151,170 pupils; and 43,591 secondary schools with 17,793,559 pupils. The Church also educates 2,304,171 high school pupils, and 3,338,455 university students.

In the field of healthcare, the Church’s worldwide charity and healthcare centers include (beyond hospitals and clinics) 18,179 dispensaries; 547 institutions for people with leprosy; 17,223 homes for the elderly, the chronically ill or people with a disability; 9,882 orphanages; 11,379 infant childcare centers; 15,327 marriage counseling offices; 34,331 social rehabilitation centers; and 9,391 charitable institutions of other kinds.

These data indicate the grassroots of a diplomacy that is aimed at helping the “least” or “last ones”, following Pope Francis’s call for the Church to be in a state of permanent mission. But this mission cannot be detached from the vision. Every situation is linked the other. Without a real diplomatic effort – comprising documents, attention and the martyrdom of patience, as Cardinal Agostino Casaroli used to put it – there is no grassroots diplomacy.

Nevertheless, the Secretariat of State already possesses the tool to implement this diplomacy for the “last ones”: the Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital in Rome. Recently, the governing structure of the Bambino Gesù was reformed, and a new president was installed. An implementation of the Bambino Gesù mission would make the reform of the Secretariat of State more comprehensive, and would serve as a good example of how to reform the Curia. This reform should have been a conversion of hearts first of all. Instead it took the shape of a reform of structures.

The theme will be certainly pivotal this week. The Council of Cardinals will meet for the 9th time from April 13-15 in order to shape curial reform. April 15 is the also the deadline for returning the Synod questionnaire to the Synod’s General Secretariat. The responses to the questionnaire will become the pillars of the ‘working document’ of the Synod. This Synod will certainly be an occasion of intense media debate. But it will also probably be a synod in which the doctrinal line will win out – with Pope Francis’ full support. Pope Francis loves to put everyone into a state of conversation, as if a permanent synod were taking place. But in the end, the Pope is – unlike than the way he is usually portrayed – a traditionalist.

Proof of this are Pope Francis’ references to ‘sensus fidei’, that he takes directly from the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Francis is the first Pope who did not take part in the Second Vatican Council. He read its documents, he applied them to his pastoral work. But he does not directly know the profound, in-depth and lively discussion behind each of the Council’s documents. He was not part of that history. This is the reason why some of his statements are not properly contextualized. And why every side seeks to lay claim to them.

When he states that the totality of the faithful “cannot fail,” he is just quoting the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution “Lumen Gentium.” In this way, he prompts an ongoing conversation among all the parties, and tries to push this “sense of the faith” concept on the faithful: bishops, priests and laity. At the same time, Pope Francis is well aware of the second part of Lumen Gentium, number 12, in which it is emphasized that “judgment as to the genuineness (of charisms) and their proper use belongs to those who are appointed leaders in the Church, to whose special competence it belongs, not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to that which is good.” Pope Francis, in fact, always affirms that the Church is “hierarchical”.

The influence of this second part of Lumen Gentium, number 12, on Francis’ reasoning is never taken into consideration. One reason for this lies in the fact that it is convenient to portray the Church preached by Pope Francis as “moving outwards,” as a Church that is going to disintegrate, to lose the unity of its doctrine and to become irrelevant in the public arena, because it will be subject to trends and public opinion.

Yes, the secular world views the Church in these terms. But Pope Francis’ adhesion to this second part of Lumen Gentium, number 12, is probably not taken in proper consideration when an appeal to “sensus fidei” is made by those seeking within the Church to break it up.

An example of this tendency can be seen in this past week’s discussion of curial reform. Cardinal Reinhard Marx is one of the biggest promoters of a reform in the Roman Curia. He recently insisted that “local Churches are not subsidiaries of Rome.” He also proposed that autonomy to be given to each bishop, because there may be situations in which the bishop alone understands certain sensibilities of his flock. The idea of diminishing the role of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and transferring some of its competences to dioceses or bishops’ conferences is often presented in discussions on curial reform, with Cardinal Marx’s full backing.

At the same time it is also true that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has not been a major object of discussion in terms of the new shape of the Roman Curia. Discussions have focused more on the establishment of new super-Congregations (for Charity, Justice and Peace; for Laity, Family and Life) in an effort to streamline the Curia. There was even a discussion about a possible reshaping of the Secretariat of State, and about reorganizing the Curia so it is run by four Secretariats – one of these being the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops. Holy See economic reform was also much debated, while almost no attention was paid to the economic reform that was already underway since the pontificate of Benedict XVI. Had that reform been implemented, there would have been no need for the establishment of new structures, as subsequently took place.

Looking more in depth, it may be that the establishment of new structures, a sort of parallel Curia, is an outcome of an erroneous interpretation of ‘sensus fidei’ – a recurrent mistake in the post-conciliar era. As a result of this mistake, some people may be led to reason that the perceptions of the lay faithful concerning the Church should influence the decisions – including the doctrinal decisions – that its pastors make, and that these decisions are ‘rightly’ made when they are made on the basis of the public image of the Church instead of on the basis of theological substance.

This is the “original sin” of such huge curial reform projects. People working in the “hidden Vatican” are well aware of this original sin. These officials don’t grab media headlines, but they have been working quietly for years within the Holy See to purify and improve its structures in order to preserve the deep unity of the Church.

Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is aware of this too. By his public declarations, Cardinal Mueller has turned into the arch-enemy of those who want to transform the Church by hammering it with majority public opinion.

Cardinal Mueller has just published a new book, so he has been giving a lot of interviews. The interview he granted March 29 to the French Catholic Newspaper “La Croix” provoked a loud reaction. In the interview the Cardinal explained that “the advent of a theologian like Benedict XVI on the Chair of Peter is probably an exception. But John XXIII was not a professional theologian. Pope Francis has a more pastoral approach, and so the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is entrusted with the mission of providing a theological structure to this pontificate.”

These words alarmed the progressives who want to draw Pope Francis over to their side. Some of their comments maliciously suggested that Cardinal Mueller was implying that the Pope has no theological structure. A devious way to put it, indeed.

Indeed Pope Francis listens a great deal to Cardinal Mueller, and has even been to the Cardinal’s residence for lunch. When Cardinal Mueller speaks, Pope Francis listens. If there is a bridge between Benedict XVI and Pope Francis it is Cardinal Mueller. Chosen by Benedict, Mueller knows Latin America very well, its extreme poverty, its popular piety. He is a friend of Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez, the father of Liberation Theology. Thanks to this friendship, Mueller was able to help purify Liberation Theology, by supporting what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had stated in two instructions during the 80s. These instructions distinguished the positive aspects of Liberation Theology from any secular or Marxist reference.

In a similar manner Cardinal Mueller is responding to those pushing a secular agenda from within the Church and behind Pope Francis’ back. Cardinal Mueller never misses an opportunity to stress the need for a theological foundation for curial reform, to insist upon the natural differences between the Synod of Bishop, the Roman Curia and Bishops’ Conferences, to denounce the heresy at the basis of the claim that local Churches are autonomous, since the Church is universal. In the end the struggle is between the particularity and universality of the Church.

This struggle is present in the debates surrounding the upcoming Synod of Bishops. At the 2014 Synod, the universality of the Church was defended by the geographical peripheries, especially by bishops from Eastern Europe and Africa. In a recent interview Cardinal Wilfried Fox Napier of Durban explained that African bishops are already preparing a report in order to demonstrate how the current teaching of the Church on marriage is good, and how this can be verified by the many marriages that work.

A certain casuistry, instead, dominated the public discussion: pastoral care for homosexual couples and pastoral care for divorced and remarried people are the topics that grab media attention more than any other.

There is a need to go beyond casuistry, and the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops now has all the tools to do so. Recently the Pope appointed new consulters to the General Secretariat. Among them is Fr. José Granados, Vice-President of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family. In spite of the fact that the Institute was widely quoted in the working document of the 2014 Synod, none of its professors was appointed to the Synod. This was a hotly debated issue, since this is the only pontifical institution that actively works on the issue of family.

Among the new consulters – another good tool for the Synod – is Dario Vitali, Professor of Ecclesiology at the Gregorian University, considered to be among the liberals. Vitali wrote his doctoral thesis on the ecclesiastical functions of ‘sensus fidelium’, and returned to the topic in an article published in the theological journal “Gregorianum”, titled: “Sensus fidelium and public opinion.”

In this article, Vitali wrote: “The weight of an artificially steered public opinion and of the resultant conformism also exercise an influence. Often, models for society disseminated by the mass media take on a normative value; in particular, the conviction arises that the Church should speak only about issues that are considered important in public opinion, and only in the way that public opinion deems convenient.” Vitali then added that dissent “sometimes appeals to a sociological argument, according to which the opinion of a great number of Christians is a direct and adequate expression of the supernatural sense of faith (sensus fidei).”

This latter is a concrete danger for the 2015 Synod. Already the recommendations of the 2014 Synod risked being driven by the media. At the same time discussion about curial reform has been carried out through press interviews and public statements, more so than through a quiet and discrete preparation of a well pondered reform, capable of reflecting the mission of the Church.

In the end, what is the ‘sensus fidei’? An exemplary explanation was offered by Benedict XVI in his July 7, 2010 general audience.

The Emeritus Pope said that “concerning the teaching on the Immaculate Conception, important theologians like Duns Scotus with the specific contribution of their thought enriched what the People of God already spontaneously believed about the Blessed Virgin and expressed in acts of devotion, in the arts and in Christian life in general. (…) The People of God therefore precede theologians and this is all thanks to that supernatural sensus fidei, namely, that capacity infused by the Holy Spirit that qualifies us to embrace the reality of the faith with humility of heart and mind. In this sense, the People of God is the “teacher that precedes” and must then be more deeply examined and intellectually accepted by theology. May theologians always be ready to listen to this source of faith and retain the humility and simplicity of children!”

Who knows whether Benedict XVI reminded Pope Francis of this. The two Popes often meet. That the Emeritus Pope may serve as a hidden adviser to Pope Francis’ is more than a possibility.

After two years Pope Francis’ papacy definitely cannot be considered as a revolution. The doctrinal changes so much hoped for by some leftist factions will not take place. If read with care, Evangelii Gaudium – Pope Francis’ Magna Carta, as he admitted – reveals that he is not aiming at doctrinal revolutions, but at leaving the Church with a new, more pastoral approach. The Pope wants to show that the Church is close to everyone, even to those at the margins. But behind his choices there would be no governing vision. Instead, there is a pastoral vision, the vision of a parish priest. Debates over a possible strategy of governing should be left to others. As they have been.

These debates were fomented by those who tried to push their agenda behind Pope Francis’ back. The Pope listens attentively to everyone, because he knows that a good part of his success comes from the good relations that bind him to his grand electors. These electors come from the Curia old guard, more than from the team that Benedict XVI fostered. Even those who were top officials under Pope Benedict, and who are now pushing their own agenda behind Pope Francis, built their careers during the last years of St. John Paul II’s pontificate, thanks to their ties with the heads of the then Secretariat of State, or with other centers of power.

Two years later, the clerical gang war that led to the Vatileaks season, alas, has not ended. Pope Francis has drawn from every bit of his Latin American charm for the sake of reviving the Church’s image. The Pope admitted that he did not have a program for governing. But his pastoral approach was well defined: it was forged in Peronist Argentina where form is substance; in the “Theology of People” that was the non-Marxist, Argentinian version of liberation theology; and in his coming from the end of the world and always feeling drawn to people, more than to a central body of government.

Thanks to these characteristics, the Bergoglio phenomenon arose. During the two years of his pontificate, Pope Francis has often been over interpreted. Choices that he deemed normal, pastoral and popular were interpreted as acts of governing and signs of contradiction. This mostly happened when the Pope spoke off the cuff. Francis is often imprecise, and his words are easily taken out of context and used against the Church. The most obvious example is the way his words about the Roman Curia are always reported. Nourished by a typical Latin American contempt for structures, the Pope spoke of the Curia as the “last European court” in his lates interview,  and his words facilitate the efforts of those who want a weak Church, one deprived of structures and unable to speak the truth to the world. It was even alleged that Pope Francis had claimed that “the Curia is leprosy,” but this was later denied. However, the Pope speaks in ways one hears in bars or on the streets. Nevertheless, after the first moment of indignation, one needs to discern what he really means.

In fact, Pope Francis himself also has had to discern. The past two years may be described as a two-speed papacy: the revolutionary age and the age of the change of pace. The revolutionary age coincided with the design for big reforms; the hiring of expensive, external consultants to improve finances, structures, even communication; and the establishment of an ad hoc Council of Cardinals in order to reform the Roman Curia.
The era of the change of pace was instead characterized by giving more trust to consultants from within the Vatican, and by the – invisible but important – reinforcement of the “hidden Vatican” that works tirelessly to reform, without dismantling structures. Therein lies the conversion of hearts Pope Francis speaks so much about.

Two years after his election, Pope Francis has established a sort of parallel Curia that will step-by-step replace the current bodies. The creation of two super-congregations (Charity, Justice and Peace; Laity, Family and Life) has been widely discussed. These two congregations would embody at least six already existing pontifical councils. The feeling is that the new congregations will be announced, only later to be filled with personnel and given structures and regulations. Something like this is what happened with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Commission on Delicta Graviora. And even more so in the case of the Secretariat for the Economy.

Even the huge overhaul of the Vatican economy is becoming a reform in slow time, in order to maintain the precision that characterized the path of reforms during Benedict XVI’s pontificate. One might ask whether it was worthwhile to establish an ad hoc Secretariat, or whether it would have been better simply to appoint Cardinal George Pell as Prefect of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs with enhanced oversight powers. This latter move may have avoided the blood-letting that recently came out through a series of leaks – something that seems to be in fashion again.

By calling a Jubilee for Mercy, Pope Francis showed where his primary interest lies: a pastoral interest, more than one in governing. “Evangelii Gaudium” reveals a Pope that does not want to speak as an expert about anything, but who speaks on each topic with the concern of a shepherd. He also runs the risk of being imprecise, but he does so in line with his primary goal of bringing the Church close to people. For Pope Francis, there are no theological nuances designed for peculiar situations. There is instead the need to take a stand, and especially to take a stand on behalf of those he deems to be the poorest.

After Pope Francis’ election, the idea of a Third Vatican Council was widely discussed in order to complete the Second Vatican Council and to bring the Church into a new season. Pope Francis responded with a new synod season, during which much discussion takes place, but few decisions are reached. But he also responded by calling this Jubilee of Mercy, thus giving new life to the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization that he had previously sidelined a bit.

All this demonstrates that the real issue is talking abut God. Paradoxically, this issue is still alive despite Pope Francis’ missionary push. This question is so crucial that it will be the topic of discussion during the next meeting of the Ratzinger Schuelerkreis, the circle of Benedict XVI’s former students. In the end, Benedict XVI indicated clearly that the “polar star” guiding the Church is Jesus, as the three books he wrote on Jesus of Nazareth demonstrate.

Two years after Pope Francis’ election, the same fundamental problems that developed and that were addressed during Benedict XVI’s pontificate remain today. Pope Francis took over those topics, he asked for recommendations, he listened to everyone and made his decisions, but without a precise governing program. We would be proven wrong if we tried to give Pope Francis’ choices a deeper meaning. Many of his decisions are influenced by his advisers, and often the Pope seems to be quite fascinated by the ideas coming from the progressive wing. This does not mean we have a progressive Pope; quite the opposite.

Perhaps Pope Francis called the Jubilee in order to deliver this message: be merciful, confess your sins, pray. This is how the conversion of hearts is achieved, and not through the (secular and non secular) agendas that attempt to give this pontificate a direction other than Francis’ own.

In fact, his closest collaborators have understood this risk. There was wide reaction in the Church after the Pope uttered the famous phrase “Don’t breed like rabbits” during the flight back from the Philippines. Many people wrote to the Secretariat of State to ask for an explanation and to express concern. They did this not because they had misinterpreted Pope Francis’ words, but because they feared his words might be misinterpreted by others.

There is a whole world of expectations behind Pope Francis. It’s as if the Church of 1968 has broken out again. With one difference. The Church’s ’68 was characterized by the publication of the controversial Dutch catechism and by post-Vatican II theological drifts. Paul VI responded to this crisis by issuing the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” and by proclaiming the Year of Faith that culminated with the Creed of the People of God. This time Pope Francis began his pontificate with the Year of Faith and in the end faces the typical hot button issues of the post-conciliar period that are now in vogue again.

And so outdated topics of debate have returned to center stage in the Church. The need for the Church to be less centralized formed the agenda of many progressive theologians after the Second Vatican Council. Decades later a dossier with the reforms needed to achieve this goal was compiled by the Bologna School, a group of scholars that interprets the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the Church’s tradition, and this file was sent on at least three occasions to the Cardinals before they gathered for the conclave that elected Francis.

Other current topics that can be traced back to the debates immediately following Vatican II include the need for a more merciful opening to homosexual couples and a more compassionate application of the doctrine of marriage.

These – and many other – doctrinal leaps forward were halted by Blessed Paul VI. St. John Paul II blocked them with the enthusiasm of one who loved the Church’s teachings but who, at the same time, was able to be close to people. Benedict XVI elevated doctrine to a higher level, with the energy of one who loves the truth and thinks that the greatest mercy possible is to equip people with the truth.

Three Popes were not enough to shelve a whole generation of post-conciliar theology intended to foster a non-Roman Church – despite the fact that it bears the title of the Apostolic Roman Catholic Church.

During the 2013 Conclave, supporters of this renewed “sixties” agenda used widespread criticism over the functionality of the Curia, and the push among Cardinals toward a needed renewal, as impetus to find a candidate able to back their plan. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was considered the ideal candidate. The space for a behind-the-scenes manipulation opened when the new Pope expressed his wish to go to peripheries and to foster pastoral care for the marginalized, on which – he recently explained to the new Cardinals – the credibility of the Church depends.

Pope Francis is very capable of judging the mood of the crowd; he knows how to bring the Church close to people. But there are others behind him who have a strong agenda and are quite accomplished at courting media support.

Some episodes this last week showed how the expectations surrounding Pope Francis may be reversed against his pontificate.

First episode. Sr. Jean Grammick is an American nun who in 1997 co-founded New Ways Ministry, a group committed to the inclusion of LGBT Catholics in the Church. Because of her commitment, she encountered some problems with her religious order, and was later welcomed by the Sisters of Loretto, a congregation with a strong tradition of helping the world’s marginalized. Fr. Robert Nugent, co-founder of New Ways Ministry, retreated once the Vatican published a Notification criticizing his work.

One year ago, Sr. Grammick planned a pilgrimage of 50 Catholic homosexuals to Rome, and Francis Di Bernardo – CEO of New Ways Ministry. who announced the pilgrimage in July, 2014 – acknowledged that they had asked for an audience with Pope Francis, since “with this Pope, one can never know.”

Earlier, Di Bernardo had given an interview to the “Ways of Love” organization that set up a conference on the inclusion of homosexuals in the Church last October in Rome, as the Synod on the family was taking place.

The private audience they asked for was not granted. Nor did the group even gain access to the “baciamano” following the general audience to which they did secure tickets. But, Sr. Grammick, who led the 50 members of the pilgrimage group, was able to get tickets for the so called “reparto speciale” (special section) in St. Peter’s Square. Hence, her group was placed not far from ecclesiastical authorities, who had the closest seats, but it was not given VIP treatment. Nevertheless Sr. Grammick claimed that they had been given VIP treatment, that her group was welcomed with full honors in the Vatican, and that whereas this could never have happened under the two previous popes, it was possible now because of the new spirit brought into the Church by Pope Francis.

Too bad that – according a press aide of the Holy See Press Office – the group had not been admitted to the ‘baciamano’, that they had not been granted special tickets as “New Ways Ministry,” but instead as a group of American pilgrims accompanied by “a Sister of Loretto.” But, the Press Office insisted, even if they had presented themselves with their real name, they would not have been denied tickets, because papal audiences are free and accessible to everyone.

The secular press was nevertheless able to declare that the Pope had now opened the doors to homosexuals, and that the sign of this opening was clear ever since the Pope had famously declared “Who am I to judge?” on the flight back to Rome from Rio de Janeiro. This declaration by the Pope was even deemed a “positive statement” in the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Report on the Holy See. The report asked for a change in the Church’s doctrine and canon law, and quoted Pope Francis’ words as a sign of good will on the part of the Holy See in improving its position on homosexuals.

The secular media were also quite excited over the closed-door conversation that the Pope had this past week with the clergy of Rome. This meeting is traditionally held after Ash Wednesday: the Pope chooses a topic for a lecture, and then a question-and-answer session follows. This year the Pope spoke about the art of preaching, and asked – for the second consecutive year – that the meeting be held behind closed doors, in order to permit greater freedom in discussion.

But this lack of transparency paved the way to speculation – as had already happened during the Synod of Bishops – because every participant in the meeting feels free afterward to quote the Pope in whatever way he wishes. The fact that there is not – nor will there be – an official transcription of the conversation issued by the Holy See Press Office means that it is difficult to contradict the media reports which reported that the Pope said the issue of married priests was “on my agenda”.

Is this true? Not really, according to witnesses. Here is what they report. Fr. Giovanni Cereti – a priest strongly committed to a movement favoring the renewal of the Church – asked the Pope if there will be some opening on the issue of married priests, and he mentioned the example of the Eastern Churches which allow married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Cereti specifically referred to former priests who had been granted dispensations and allowed to marry, but who would now like to return to celebrating Mass, which they can no longer do. The Pope – sources reported – said that the issue was not going to be shut away in a desk drawer, but that it will be considered, even if it is difficult to find a solution. These words expressed the Pope’s concern over the issue, but they did so vaguely. Nevertheless, from this vagueness, the secular media concluded that the great Pope Francis was leaning toward the possibility of married priests.

The secular frenzy to portray a non-existing Pope also arises despite its awareness that in the end the Church is much greater than any secular or secularized agenda will allow.

The Synod of Bishops was the first test. Despite strong attempts to push certain positions forward, the bishops themselves proved to be very conscious of the current challenges; they defended the tradition and were not afraid to speak out in favor of it. Only as a result of a coup was it possible for paragraphs that did not attain the Synod’s consensus to be kept in the final report. This happened as a result of Pope Francis’ intervention. But who advised him?

The second test was the recent Consistory on curial reform. As happened in November during the meeting with the heads of Vatican dicasteries, and despite the fact that the reform draft presented by Bishop Marcello Semeraro had later been buttressed with a theological foundation, many Cardinals during the Consistory expressed their concern about the way the reform was outlined. They accepted its basic guidelines (rationalization, subsidiarity, better employment of funds), but also insisted on the need to make clearer distinctions among certain curial structures (the first distinction to be made is between the Holy See and Vatican City State) and to provide a unified design. This reaction by the Cardinals proves that what had at first been designated by many as a “revolution” had by now become yet another “renewal” which would require a great deal more time.

The third test will come in October during the second session of the Synod of Bishops on family issues. The game has already begun. While Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, takes part in many round tables and conferences intended to carry forward Cardinal Kasper’s agenda, and while Cardinal Kasper is currently publishing a second book on mercy praising the Pope Francis’ “radical papacy”, bishops conferences around the world are electing their representatives to the Synod.

Representatives chosen up to now seem to lean more toward the conservative wing, but later Pope Francis will re-balance everything through his own appointments. Who knows if Cardinal Godfried Daneels, emeritus primate of Belgium, will be chosen once again as a papal delegate?

Daneels is a champion of the progressive world, and already said he is worried that curial reforms have come to a halt, but he also said that he is confident that the required steps forward will be made. And the change of perspective will include the Synod of Bishops, step by step.

All of these declarations show a certain nervousness, combined with the idea that the Pope has been misinterpreted. It seems that Pope Francis is driven mostly by a peculiar kind of behavior, rather than a specific agenda, and that this behavior is what lies behind his words, behind his sometimes controversial gestures (as the recent meeting with a transsexual and his fiance; or the conversation with the leader of the secular press, Eugenio Scalfari). It also seems that his choices for church government are mostly intended to follow the mandate he believes he received from the Cardinals prior to his election. This is probably the reason his positions seem to fluctuate from one statement to another, from being hyper-conservative to being hyper-progressive, from being devotional, but at the same time from being so careless with Church tradition.

There is just one final question: who wants Pope Francis to be misinterpreted? Which interests are moving behind this pontificate? And why have these interests seemingly found fertile ground under this pontificate?

Perhaps only the Cardinals who lobbied for Pope Francis’ election – in Austen Ivereigh’s words, ‘Team Bergoglio’ – can answer these questions. For unlike the Pope, they really do have an agenda for the Church.

What’s going on now? Commentators on the self-proclaimed party of Pope Francis will certainly underscore the resistances they met in the process of reforming the Church – resistances that did not allow the hoped-for revolution. Those who were more cautious in backing any papal move will argue that Pope Francis’ design was too weak to be put into effect as quickly as the progressive wing hoped.

The truth is in the middle. Pope Francis never had a plan to renew the Church. He did not want in any way to reverse standing church doctrines. He simply thought there was a need for a greater pastoral approach. Those who supported him in the conclave were then assigned to key posts as his advisers, and sometimes they took advantage of this papal naiveté to promote their own agenda. This agenda met with some resistance. But often resistance was due to the fact that the agenda of these few people did not represent a vision shared by many.

At the beginning of the consistory, Pope Francis asked for collaboration, pointed out that the reform is not an end in itself, but is intended to foster unity among curial depearments, and reminded the cardinals that the demand for reform came from the pre-conclave meetings – a sublte way to emphasize that he is simply carrying out the mandate he had been given.

But what were the requests at the pre-conclave meetings? That’s the most burning question, since a plan for a quick revolution is turning into a studied approach for reform. Many of residential cardinals lamented a lack of communication with Rome and an excessive centralism of the Curia. These complaints were supported by appeals to scandals such as Vatileaks or to the well orchestrated campaigns against the Holy See, as in the case of the pedophilia scandal.

There was the need to renew the Church’s image. And there was a desire to understand what did not work in the collegiality that Benedict XVI had appealed to as a working tool. But collegiality works only when everyone agrees. So if some parties oppose a proposal, the process of renewal becomes incredibly slow. And hurdles are just small stones placed in clock mechanisms: they do not stop the clock, but they slow it down until they break it.

So the small stones had to be removed from the mechanism in order to improve its functionality. There are proper words to describe this dynamic, even if they sound secular: rationalization, subsidiarity. There was a need for functional adjustments, more than for certifying the end of an era and starting a new one.

The truth is that some cardinals perceived a need to commence a new era, first of all by the German bishops. In Germany, theology has been widely influenced by the theology of Cardinal Kasper and his teacher, Karl Rahner, rather than by that of Joseph Ratzinger. Ratzinger never established a school of thought. But he indicated a method. His presence in Rome, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has step by step purified a theological thought that had somewhat given in to the spirit of the world – just think about the waves of liberation theology, whose Marxist roots were established by Leonardo Boff after he encountered it in Germany; about the new discipline for the divorced and civilly remarried pushed by bishops of the German Rhine region; about some interreligious writings that de facto seem to deny that Jesus’ was the only salvation.

After years of Ratzinger’s wise theological work, each of these three moves was put aside to some extent. The Kasper School – to give it a name – would have probably died off by itself in a few years. Now it has a strong impact on media again.

Meanwhile, there is the Latin American issue, where the big deal was catecheses. The exodus of Catholics toward the Pentecostal sects comes from a lack of a firm doctrine. The Catholic Church in Latin America is often sought out by people as a social agency, while they prefer to take part in Pentecostal worship. Liberation Theology has undoubtedly contributed to this tilt. But the tilt was also fed by a certain “pastoralism” that was fashioned during the 70s. Followers of pastoralism think that the main need is to go out to people and get closer them closer, whereas doctrine can come later, once people have been attracted to the Church. St. John Paul had already addressed this topic. Later he, too, opted for an evangelization focused on proximity, but one that nevertheless emphasized Truth above all.

The purification of the Church from incorrect theological interpretation had already begun with Paul VI, and his Credo of the People of God. St. John Paul II carried it forward in order to settle the theological debates arising in the aftermath of the Council. Behind the traveller Pope, theological pillars arose with the purpose of shaping the world with the strength of truth. We usually remember the St. John Paul II who was beloved by the media in his last years, when he was sick. We never recall the first years of his pontificate, when his ideas, his authoritative way of leading the barque of Peter, aroused many complaints.

True, in 27 years of his papacy the Pope had to balance positions. And it is also true that oftentimes in the last years of his pontificate, he did not personally make the decisions, but rather ratified decisions others had made. This is the reason there are so many different orientations among the cardinals created by St. John Paul II.

Cardinals of the ‘Team Bergoglio’ (i.e., the team who backed Bergoglio’s election) all hail from a certain “left” of the Church, very much loved in the peripheries, that St. John Paul II had inhereted and to which he was sometimes submissive, but that Benedict XVI had marginalized.

From this perspective, it is clear that the impetus for a revolution came from generational needs. The whole edifice of this revolution was already quite old, some of the cardinals were close to the age of retirement; others had exceeded it. They needed to hurry up.

Hence, the pressures on Pope Francis for a revolution. They were certain that they would find in him fertile ground, since Pope Francis does not love structures very much, but prefers to act in the first person. They also knew that Pope Francis does not love the process of large debates followed by the issuing of important documents, inasmuch as that, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he did not wish to celebrate a diocesan synod, and that he had already scorned the idea of the recently published homiletic directory.

But this revolution has seemingly come to an halt during this latest consistory. In the end, the more than 100 interventions collected by the Council of Cardinals from more than 50 sessions has produced only the proposal to establish two super-congregations, each of them with five secretariats, in order to embody 12 pontifical councils in only two structures.

The Council of Cardinals also discussed the establishment of a new congregation, which should be called the Secretariat for Communication that will place all Vatican media under a single administration. This umbrella department will also be responsible for coordinating – and unifying – the contents of Vatican media.

Each piece of the puzzle move other pieces. So, since this Secretariat for Communication might include – or at least take over some competences from – the Pontifical Council for the Culture, the President of this Council, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, proposed to create a Congregation for Culture, which he thinks should manage the Vatican Library, the Vatican Secret Archives and the Vatican Museums.

Finally, there is the ongoing reform carried forward by the Council for the Economy and the Secretariat for the Economy, with the task of unifying the balance sheets of the Holy See and Vatican City State.

The real problem is that many of these drafts of reform proposals mix together different competences. Discussions at the consistory focused on understanding how the bishops’ conferences could take over some of the competences of the various pontifical councils and congregations. Another matter under review is the proposal to make the General Secretariat of the Synod a governing body in itself, given that the Pope is always speaking about synodality. Lastly, there was some discussion arising from the confusion expressed by some over the differences between Vatican City State and the Holy See.

Not by chance, on the eve of the Council of Cardinals and of the consistory, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published a long article in “L’Osservatore Romano” headlined “Purify the temple.”

The article stretched back to the origins of the need for reform that Benedict XVI himself had already taken on. Pope Benedict had also spoken of making the Church less worldy. Cardinal Mueller identified the final goal of Church reform as enlightening the mission of the Church. In addition he stressed the differences between the Roman Curia, the College of Cardinals, the Synod of Bishops, and the administration of Vatican City State, and he warned against the temptation of over-spiritualizing the Church, thereby relegating it to an environment of ideals divorced from reality.

The article was a must read, since it shed light on the limits of the proposals for reform that had been circulating for months. The problem, the Cardinal thought, was not reform. It was mostly that a strong theological foundation is needed in order to accomplish a revolution, and so to rewrite a new pastoral constitution to contain the revolution.

Bishop Marcello Semeraro of Albano, Secretary of the Council of Cardinals, tried to provide this theological foundation, and so he added a second part to his reform draft, one that provided a thological justification for the idea of establishing the two super-congregations, respectively, for Charity, Justce and Peace and for Laity, Family and Life. However, even on this point, the cardinals raised many doubts, especially concerning terminology. Thus the first interventions at the consistory dealt with the use of the word “synodality”, with many expressing a preference for the term “collegiality”.

There are also practical legislative issues. The Council for the Economy drafted its statutes and presented them for revision to the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. This passage was necessary in order to make sure that all the laws were consistent and in harmony with each other, that they designated competences clearly, and that they did not violate canon law. The Pontifical Council made some criticisms and judged that the text should be rewritten.

The Council did not take this well. Cardinal Wilfried Napier, a member of the Council, voiced the dismay of the body, stressing the resistance to the reforms. But Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, rejected the accusation. “The Pontifical Council only performed its task… it must be certain that the legislative framework is well grounded… we do not resist reforms, we make them happen,” he affirmed.

It is noteworthy that Cardinal Coccopalmerio is not far from Pope Francis’ line, and some observers even deem him one of the most progressive cardinals, even in regard to the hot topics of the Synod. Since he had sketched a reform proposal that reportedly made him the most voted Italian cardinal at the 2013 conclave, Cardinal Coccopalmerio nevertheless asked that the revolution be given an institutional basis, and so he is thought to be on the other side.

But the revolution will not come so quickly. The common understanding at the conclusion of the consistory is that the new pastoral constitution will be drafted by a commission composed of experts (including canon law experts). The draft will then be passed to a select cardinalatial commission. And in the end, the Pope will make the final decision.

In the meantime, it is possible that parallel bodies without statutes will be created – building blocks to be stacked temporarily beside the already existing structures only to replace them later when the full reform is complete. The risk is that any good thing may be torn down by the blowing of the wind. Pope Francis may well make all the right decisions from today until the end of his pontificate, but unless his choices are securely grounded on theology and canon law, it may be that none of them will survive.

The real issue is perhaps deeper: there is a lot of functional (pragmatic?) thinking going on presently, but there is not a lot of theological reflection. That’s the challenge.

Before the arrival of Pope Francis, the main themes of discussion in the Church have had solid theological roots. But even the question concerning the pastoral care of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, as well as for homosexual couples – both of which were the object of a heated debate at the last Synod of Bishops – are in the end based on theological foundations, and deal with the application of doctrine. Moreover, even the criticisms aimed at the pope’s plan for curial reform – the other issue at currently at stake in this pontificate – are founded on theological and juridical grounds.

Nevertheless, Pope Francis demonstrates that he is moving on completely different grounds. It is not by chance that one of his favourite quotes about ecumenism is taken from the conversation between Bl. Paul VI and the Patriarch of Costantinople, Athenagoras: “If we were to close ourselves off in a room together and leave the theologians outside, we would accomplish ecumenism in one hour.” In similar fashion, leaving theological discussions aside, Pope Francis wants to propose a model of a Church that evangelizes through attraction, and not because of the strength of its concepts.

Pope Francis’ choices in two consistories mirror this intention. Beyond choosing a few candidates with strong institutional ties, Pope Francis has selected as cardinals mainly bishops whose primary interest is not found in some or other theological position, but in pastoral practice. Pope Francis’ Church bypasses theological discussion and aims at going straight to the heart of the people.

All of these new cardinals will bring their peculiar perspectives to the consistory the Pope has convened to discuss reform of the Roman Curia. The reform seems to be stuck. The first comprehensive draft was highly criticized by Vatican dicasteries, and there is a real risk that the structure will remain as it is for the moment, in expectation of a definitive change that will not take place before the end of this year – as Pope Francis has admitted. Nevertheless, another option that one insider designates “St. Peter’s option” may be explored.

It can be explained this way. During the construction of the current Basilica of St. Peter in the 16th century, the old basilica was only gradually dismantled, step by step, while it was replaced with the new building. This is the way Pope Francis works, by establishing new structures around the currently existing structure which is then removed once the new structure is complete.

Through this lens we can better understand the process by which the Vatican at first hired expensive external commissions and then followed this step with the establishment of the Secretariat for the Economy, the Council for the Economy and the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. These bodies were born without statutes and they set out to work while waiting for their specific powers and competences to be drafted.

This is way curial reform will be carried out. According to sources, during their recent ad limina visit, the Lithuanian bishops asked Pope Francis about the reform. He replied that two super-congregations, respectively, for Justice and Charity and Laity and Family will be established. How the competences of the many minor dicasteries that will be subsumed into these new Congregations will be arranged is yet to be decided. But establishing them is a first step toward the much anticipated Curia reform.

The rationale is that the Curia structure must be reduced in size in order to be closer to people. Beyond the theological discussions that characterized the major curial reform begun under Bl. Paul VI and concluded under St. John Paul II, Pope Francis’ reform is mostly intended to be functional in order to extend the voice of the Church to “the end of the world” from which the Pope hails. For Pope Francis there is no need for structures, instead there is a need for a credible witness.

This rationale is reflected in his choices of new cardinals. Up till now, several keys to reading Pope Francis’ picks over the last two years have been suggested. It was argued that he wanted to privilege the geographical peripheries of the Church, or that he wanted to combat careerism, and that for this reason he was not awarding the red hat to bishops in dioceses that have always had a cardinal by tradition, or else that he wanted to internationalize the College of Cardinals.

All of these reasons are intriguing and even true if one glances at the cardinals’ profiles from the perspective of their assignments or their geographical locations Nevertheless, these interpretations may be misleading and may even betray Pope Francis’ spirit.

Broadly speaking, the Pope selects bishops whom he appreciates for their pastoral touch. In a recent interview, the archbishop Soane Patita Mafia of Tonga, a surprise pick among the new cardinals, emphasized that he will take with him to Rome the cry of poor of his country. He is not the only one. Cardinal-designate Francis Kriengsak Kovithanij of Bangkok, Thailand  is working to foster small Christian communities in a country where Christians are a very small minority.

Pope Francis got to know many of these new cardinals during the last Synod of Bishops. He appreciated their human touch and their pastoral sensitivity. More than what they currently do in their homeland, the impression they gave when they took the floor at the synod, the way they defended and supported mercy and closeness to people, were crucial to their selection.

Still, no theological preference seems to drive Pope Francis’ choices. Instead one finds a human touch, a peculiar instinct that guides the Pope in understanding who the prelates are with whom he feels more at ease.

Renunciation of worldliness may also imply for Pope Francis a renunciation of intellectual debate. Pope Francis wants shepherds with the smell of the sheep, and he had been clear about this since the beginning of his pontificate. Other qualities do not seem to matter that much to him; they seem to be mere add-ons that he applies to his discussion of bishops when it suits him to do so.

These new cardinals (Pope Francis has chosen some 40 to date) will have an impact in this coming week’s consistory on curial reform. Now that the Council of Cardinals has met eight times, the Pope is seeking a turning point, and in order to bring this about he is filling the College of Cardinals with a considerable number of individuals whom he believes share his vision.

Although the reform issue might be solved with the so-called “St. Peter’s option,” the struggle over the upcoming Synod seems more complicated. Once again, Pope Francis’ intention is to free the Church from an over-dependence upon doctrine in order to find a pastoral approach that will bring the Church closer to people. But how can doctrine and pastoral practice be reconciled?

This continues to be a hotly debated topic. The discussion evidences a strange convergence between the Roman Curia and some local Churches, many of which, ironically speaking, are on the peripheries. Not by chance, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, underscored in an interview granted to the weekly magazine “La Settimana” that the strong points of the last synod of bishops were the doctrinal framework, the Gospel of the Family, and the push for young people to receive an education about love.

But these issues were included in the Synod’s final report only after the small groups (circuli minores) strongly criticized – and pushed for a substantial rewriting of – the Synod’s midterm report.

Cardinal Baldisseri’s words signalled that the Synod war has already begun, and that – in spite of the slogan “We don’t turn back” which accompanied the presentation of the next Synod’s guidelines – the majority of bishops does not endorse a pastoral practice that is completely detached from doctrine.

And Pope Francis would probably not support it either. The Pope is always very orthodox in his declarations. This fact has been demonstrated several times. The Pope backed the Slovakian bishops in their commitment to promote a referendum to defend the traditional family in their country. He invited Filipinos to be wary of the ideological colonization of the family. He expressed a strongly negative judgment over gender theory, which he also defined as ‘demonic’ during a meeting with Austrian bishop in an ad limina visit. Taken together these moments indicate that Pope Francis is anything but progressive.

So, who is the real Pope Francis? The one who supports liberal bishops and priests, or the one who speaks in an orthodox way? The answer may be more obvious than expected.

Simply put, for Pope Francis pastoral practice is more important than any given theological debate because the latter, in the end, may be no more than a worldly exercise. Perhaps his famous declaration about preferring a “poor Church for the poor” may also be read this way: a Church light in structure with limited philosophical debates and a great deal of pastoral love.

But this is not new. Benedict XVI spoke in almost the same terms about the need to escape worldliness and to move beyond the self-referentiality of ecclesial structures. And he underscored the value of mercy as is evidenced in the homily he delivered at the Mass for the inauguration of his petrine ministry. Time and again Pope Benedict preached about a Church that should not be constructed on ideas, but engaged in a lively evangelization effort.

Nevertheless, between these two popes a paradigm change is taking place. Pope Benedict was convinced that a solid theological background was needed so that the Church’s pastoral practice would be correct. In fact, the search for truth was pivotal in his pontificate. Pope Francis, on the other hand, sets aside any given theological problem in order to seek immediate, personal contact with people.

Bishop Eduardo Horacio Garcia, who was Cardinal Bergoglio’s auxiliary bishop in Buenos Aires,  recounted shortly after Pope Francis’ election that “at the end of the Jubilee Year, for which Cardinal Bergoglio had called a missionary year, we priests of the archdiocese asked Cardinal Bergoglio to call a synod in order to discuss how to harvest the fruits of our mission and draft guidelines. But he responded that a synod was good only for producing useless documents, while the only thing we need to do is to continue our missionary efforts and to remain in a state of permanent mission.”

These words perhaps explain better than anything else the inner sense of this pontificate. Pope Francis is putting everyone in a state of permanent synod in order to understand each bishop’s perspectives. But the direction of his reforms will proceed from a pastoral approach, and nothing else. Perhaps this is the real change of paradigm.

Pope Francis will hold a consistory to create new cardinals on the 14 and 15th of February. The announcement came at the end of a busy week: Pope Francis has granted an important interview, has personally reshaped the synod narrative against the media narrative during a general audience, and has taken part in the 7th meeting of the Council of Cardinals. In the end, the announcement of the consistory can be considered a further step forward, to go beyond a small internal crisis .

This crisis lies on two issues: the debate about the Synod of Bishops, and the discussion on Curia reform. In both cases, the discussion has become very lively. In both cases, the Pope is called to take a strong stance. 

For what concerns the Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis tried to calm things down speaking in an interview with the Argentine newspaper “La Naciòn,” the first interview the Pope had given to a newspapers from his homeland. The Synod is “an ongoing process,” the Pope said. And he added that no one has questioned Catholic doctrine, but certainly divorced and civilly remarried people should not be pushed aside. “They cannot be godfathers to any child being baptized, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact! [...] Things need to change, our standards need to change,” underscored the Pope, thus showing that he prefers a more pastoral approach. 

In the General audience of Dec. 10, Pope Francis returned to the issue of the synod. Yes, he said, there had been a lively discussion among the synod’s fathers, but there had not been divisions, and none has ever questioned the fundamental truth of marriage which, the Pope reiterated, is between a man and a woman, indissoluble and open to life. He then added that the Pope is the warrant of the orthodoxy, as he already stated at the beginning of the synod. While, in the speech he delivered at the end of the synod – which Pope Francis considers one of the three official documents of the synod, not including the midterm report – he reiterated the importance of his role as Pope. 

In the middle, the guidelines (Lineamenta) of the 2015 synod have been released. The guidelines include the synod’s final report as it is (with all of its controversies) and a series of 46 final considerations. These are divided in three parts, and each part has an introduction, that the General Secretariat of the Synod generally gives to clearly indicate the method to follow. Id est, not to go back from the “pastoral turn” and to avoid “a mere application of doctrine to pastoral work,” taking into account that the synod’s path has been now traced. 

Certainly, not all the participants of the synod will appreciate these indications. Some days ago, concluding the plenary assembly of the International Theological Commission, Cardinal Gehrard Ludwig Mueller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, underscored that “separating doctrine from pastoral work is almost a heresy.” However, the synod’s guidelines are yet to be published. This is prove that the discussion will be tough. 

Pope Francis has started to manage the crisis. He did it his way, personalizing communication. He personally took the floor. With “La Nación,” he had even spoken of Curia gossip, and explained why he had appointed Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke as Patron of the Sovereign Order of Malta, and why he had not renewed the mandate of the Swiss Guards’ commander

It is perhaps the first time a Pope uses interviews and conversations this way. Pope Francis conversations with the atheistic journalist Eugenio Scalfari, founder of the leftist Italian newspaper ‘La Repubblica’, helped him to gain favor in the secular world. The interview the Pope granted to the Jesuit-run magazine ‘La Civiltà Cattolica’ underlined his being a Jesuit. He granted most of the remaining interviews to secular media, especially Italian ones (‘Corriere della Sera’; ‘La Stampa’; ‘Il Messaggero’) plus one to the Spanish newspaper Lavanguardia, with the purpose of generating a positive image of him in the country that generates so many news about the Vatican. Then, he went on air in radio programs in Argentina. The commitment to communication is finally completed by his personal phone calls. 

Given all this circumstances, it is not surprising that Pope Francis may have used an interview to address the current problems and critics, in order to manage the crisis. The Pope then deepened his commitment by addressing the faithful directly. During last Wednesday’s General Audience, the Pope shared his reading and narrative of the synod of bishops, in order to go beyond the media narrative.

This may be seen as a sign that the debate is even more than lively, within the Sacred Walls. As lively as the debate of the reform is. 

On Curia reform, Pope Francis also took the situation in his hands. In the interview he had granted to ‘La Nación’, Pope Francis clearly said that reforms will take at least one more year. It was a needed explanation, since the discussion on reforms had come to a halt. 

When the Bishop Marcello Semeraro, Secretary of the Council of Cardinals, presented on Nov. 24 the proposals of reform to the heads of dicasteries, the draft was intensely criticized. The way the draft had designed the two big Congregations of Justice and Peace and Laity and Family was – according to many – too vague, and did not take into account the new responsibilities undertaken by the Vatican dicasteries in the course of the years. The Council of Cardinals discussed all of these observations for one day and a half during their last gathering Dec. 9-11. Pope Francis took part in the meeting as much as possible. The very Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, in the end clarified that the reform’s process is ongoing and that it will not be short. Fr. Lombardi also underscored that – once there is a final draft of a reform, it will be worked on by Canon Law and juridical experts. It will not be quick, contrary to what many over-communicative cardinals of the Council made believe.

Pope Francis is now once more reshaping his revolution. He has always preferred the pastoral issues, but now he is also conditioned by the cardinals that have elected him with a precise agenda. Pope Francis shares the need for a renewal. He wants cardinals and bishops close to the people. He does not deem the institutional structure to be very important, as he has said several times. On the other hand, he has understood that he cannot underestimate a reform of the institutional structure. Sometimes, this reform seems to be designed as a dismantlement of the existing system. Other times, the Pope seems to  strengthen the institutional branch – for instance, when he appointed professor Vincenzo Buonomo as an adviser to the Vatican City State government.

The crisis of Curia reforms lies on two fronts. On one hand, the need to keep an institutional framework. On the other hand, the frenzy of those – and many of them are in the Council of Cardinals – pushing for quick reform, in order to dismantle a system that did not work, according to them. On one side, those who want to carry forward Benedict XVI’s renewal – the Pope emeritus had given reform an institutional framework, including his historical renunciation to the Petrine ministry; on the other side, those who had focused on the discontent over the flaws of the Curia structure to carry forward their own agenda – among those, the cardinals of the old guard, who pushed for a quick conclave. 

Influenced by these dichotomies, Pope Francis has managed the crisis by coming down to the field in person and opening a discussion, that will take place in February. 

According to the schedule provided by Fr. Lombardi, the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors will gather Feb. 6-8, finally provided of statutes and with a full membership (members should go from 8 to 18); the 8th meeting of the Council of Cardinals will take place Feb. 9 – 11;  after that, Pope Francis will convoke a public ordinary consistoy Feb. 12-13, in order to discuss the Curia reform plan; and finally, on Feb. 14-15, Pope Francis will convoke the extraordinary consistory for the creation of new cardinals. 

This way, the creation of new cardinals will come at the end of an intense period of discussions. Probably, a meeting of the Council for the Economy will be likewise scheduled at the beginning of February, so that it may provide cardinals with further suggestions for reform. 

The ongoing discussion gives the impression that Pope Francis wants to put the Church in a sort of state of Permanent Council. In the end, it’s alway the Pope to have the last word. 

This is the reason why the creation of new cardinals may shift the balance of discussion in his favor. In February 2015, the cardinals under the age of 80 and so able to vote in a Conclave will be 110. It means that Pope Francis will have 10 red birrette to reach the number of 120 voting cardinals set by the Blessed Paul VI in 1975 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the ‘Universi Dominici Gregis’, the regulation for the election of a Pope. Pope Francis will have 15 slots for possible new cardinals in the course of 2015: in June, the voting cardinals will be 107, and from November they will become 105. 

Certainly among the new red hats will be Archbishop Bruno Forte, general secretary of the synod, who is about to be appointed to a major archdiocese in Italy or to an important post in the Roman Curia. 

With 15 new hats, Pope Francis can really change the geography and the orientation of the College of Cardinals. 

The change on the College of Cardinals, plus some additional appointments, may allow Pope Francis to take the Church beyond the institutional crisis. But not beyond the synod’s discussion, still close to the heart of people Pope Francis wants to reach for. Bishops will not take any step back from the synod’s discussion, and will not give up to pressures and indications like those contained in the synod’s guidelines. And, though he had accepted and even promoted the Pastoral turn, Pope Francis has let it be known that he is unlikely to deviate from orthodoxy. 

Will Francis be the pope to revolutionize the Church? The exhortation shows that Pope Francis is solid on doctrine. Pope Francis’ view is «orthodox» on family (the whole paragraph 66 is dedicated to it), abortion (which Pope Francis firmly condemns), and on the non-admission of women to the priesthood. What Pope Francis preaches is a change of strategy in the Church, based on a change of the structures.

The Evangelii Gaudium was supposed to be the post-synodal exhortation issued to close the Year of Faith that began last year with the synod of bishops on the new evangelization. Monsignor Lorenzo Baldisseri, General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, has underlined that Pope Francis did not want the exhortation to be defined «post-synodal,» and opted instead to issue a wider «programmatic document.»

Pope Francis himself stresses that the document is a program. «I want to emphasize – Pope Francis wrote in paragraph 25 – that what I am trying to express here has a programmatic significance and important consequences. I hope that all communities will devote the necessary effort to advance along the path of a pastoral and missionary conversion which cannot leave things as they presently are. ‘Mere administration’ can no longer be enough. Throughout the world, let us be ‘permanently in a state of mission.’»

Jorge Mario Bergoglio had already spoken about a «permanent mission» to the priests of the diocese of Buenos Aires. The then archbishop Bergoglio proclaimed a missionary year for the Jubilee. At its end, the priests asked him to convoke a synod to discuss and harvest the fruits of their missionary work. Bergoglio stood firmly against it: «A synod would just produce a document that will collect dust on bookshelves. I invite you to continue your missionary experience, to be in a permanent state of mission.»  It is what Pope Francis now wants for the whole Church.

There is more. Together with Pope Francis’ attacks against the idolatry of money, the society of waste, and unrestrained liberalism (attacks that he has increasingly dwelled into during his morning homilies at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, in the interview to the Jesuit-run magazine La Civiltà Cattolica, and in his public interventions) one can also appreciate his goal to reform the Petrine Ministry. And synodality will be crucial to this reform.

What is synodality, and why is it often presented in contrast to collegiality? Collegiality deals with hierarchy and administration, while synodality deals with the overall people of God. Synodality is an attitude, and Pope Francis really wants to develop it. It is unlikely that the Pope will change the very discipline of the Petrine Ministry. He will mostly change (in some ways, he is already doing so) the way the Petrine Ministry is put into action.

More likely, the structural reform will deal mostly with the bishops’ conferences. In paragraph 32 Pope Francis underscores that «a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.»

In fact, the discussion on a possible reform of bishops’ conference started long time ago. Would entrusting the bishops’ conferences with «genuine doctrinal authority»  mean that these regional conferences would be able to autonomously decide whether to allow communion to believers who have divorced their spouses and then remarried? Would this change and dissolve the functions and responsibilities of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

It is rumored that a reform is already taking place, with priests being called back by their dioceses or sent back to them by their congregations, so that there will no longer be a central organization sending  its officials around the world to report on any problems. Instead, the national conferences of bishops would be able decide on their own about what constitutes a problem to be reported, thus making Roman central power gradually less influential. How the request for more peripheral autonomy will be reconciled with the petrine ministry is yet to be seen.

Pope Francis seems nevertheless to have a clear notion of what he wants to achieve. When he appointed Lorenzo Baldisseri as General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, he called him in for a meeting in which he tore in half the Pontifical Annuary (the Vatican’s annual directory).  Referring to the Roman Curia half of the torn apart directory, the Pope told Baldisseri: «You do not need that part.»

Nobody knows yet what will be of the Vatican Secretariat of State, but it seems that Pope Francis does not want to resort to it that much. He chose a person he trusts as Secretary of State, Msgr. Pietro Parolin, who had just arrived at his post following an illness and who has already started to visit the different Vatican departments. He will handle the Vatican Secretariat of State dossiers, perhaps streamlining procedures.

Within the Secretariat of State there are ultimately two schools of thought. The first approaches the renewal of the Church from a managerial perspective, appointing external commissions and trusted advisers, launching media campaigns to underline the breach with the past and that times have changed. The second one is that of men within the institution, who must bear the decisions and are asked to tolerate the earnings that consultants and outsider specialists received ad-hoc, sometimes from outside donors. The men within the institution are working to give the Holy See a solid structure, moving beyond the episodes of corruption and resisting power play pressures.

Until now, Pope Francis had stood aside and watched. He has appointed a Council of Cardinals, which this week will once again gather, at the Vatican, to talk about the Pastor Bonus (the apostolic constitution that regulates the Roman Curia) and the possible reform of the Curia. Pope Francis has also established two «pontifical advisory commissions», one on the IOR (the Institute for Religious Works) and one to supervise and rationalize the economic structure of the Holy See.

In the meantime, external consultants, called in to assist with renewal in the Vatican, have increased: the Promontory Group for the IOR, the Grupo Santander for the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See, and Ernst & Young for the Vatican City State Governorate. This led to increasing concerns about possible conflicts of interest. The most salient is that of Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui, a member of an advisory pontifical commission and at the same time employed by Ernst & Young.  There have also been calls for greater transparency in Vatican expenditures: hiring consultants is very expensive, yet no Vatican balance sheet at the moment sheds any light on the fees these consultants are getting.

Pope Francis has probably taken note of these issues and has decided to appoint a delegate of his to the two papal advisory commissions. The Pope’s delegate will be Msgr. Alfred Xuereb, a priest hailing from Malta who had previously been Benedict XVI’s secretary. According to the Holy See Press Office, Msgr. Xuereb task is «to exercise a supervisory role and to inform the Pope, in collaboration with the Secretariat of State, on working procedures and on any initiatives to be undertaken. »

Pope Francis is in this way re-shaping his «revolution». In a short time, he has lowered the “rating” of the interview he granted to the Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, now taken off from the Vatican website; he corrected and specified some of his words about the Second Vatican Council, in a letter addressed to Msgr. Agostino Marchetto coinciding with the presentation of Marchetto’s most recent book about the Council and its hermeneutic of continuity; finally, he has clarified his doctrinal position, especially through the exhortation Evangelii Gaudium.

Ultimately, Pope Francis has been, until now, collecting ideas. The reform of the Financial Information Authority – a reform based on the vision and the work of Vatican officials who succeeded in getting a generally positive report on Vatican finances by the relevant European institutions– proved that Pope Francis had been able to resist the subtle appeals of followers of the old version of the Vatican money laundering law. The old law, in fact, allowed select top Vatican officials to manage information about the Vatican financial affairs in an autocratic and very personal manner, under the aegis of their special relations with particular (mostly Italian) extra-Vatican institutions.

Yet to be seen is whether Pope Francis will take a further step, going beyond the informal papacy and paying more attention to its institutional side. It is yet to be seen, as well, how will the pope develop a vision that will incorporate the Holy See sovereignty to carry forward the mission of the Church.

At any rate, Pope Francis deems these questions secondary. More than thinking about a possible Curia reform, Pope Francis aims to establish a general synodal attitude. His gaze is not set on the Curia, but outside the Curia. Not on the Secretariat of State, but on the bishops’ secretariats.

Pope Francis’ first goal is to announce the Gospel of mercy, to primarear (a Pope’s neologism that means to take the initiative in showing our concern for our neighbor). Primarear is the marching order for a reform of attitudes, which Pope Francis considers more important than the reform of the structures.